Rajasthan High Court
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
15 rulings found
Rajasthan High Court
Where real estate developer received show cause notice and order uploaded on portal without any digital or physical signature and recovery initiated, such unsigned documents lacked statutory authentication under Rule 26(3) and constituted a jurisdictional defect, rendering SCN, order, recovery notice and consequent bank attachment invalid and liable to be quashed
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside GST: Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee proved possession of invoices, receipt of goods, and payment, denial of input tax credit solely due to supplier's default in GST deposit and non-reflection in GSTR-2A was unsustainable in absence of collusion, and department ought first to proceed against defaulting supplier, making impugned recovery from assessee without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed GST: Where notice invoking section 74 was issued for raising demand in respect of alleged ineligible or excess ITC for 2018-19 solely on bare assertions of fraud or wilful misstatement without particulars, and reply with supporting documents was not addressed, such notice was ex facie time-barred under section 73(10), recourse to extended limitation was without jurisdiction and proceedings were liable to be quashed
Bombay High Court
Where garnishee proceedings and recovery notices were initiated for interest on delayed payment despite petitioner’s pending representations disputing interest liability and computation, and no decision on these representations was made by authority, matter was required to be decided by passing a reasoned order on aforesaid representations, until then, no further recovery steps could be taken
Madras High Court
Where petitioner with registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received a combined section 73 order and sought waiver of interest or penalty via single SPL-02 under section 128A(1)(b) after tax payment, proper officer could not decline jurisdiction for Maharashtra alone as same officer issued combined order and no statutory basis exists to split jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration
Madras High Court
Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A was available where proceedings had been initiated under section 73 even in respect of self assessed tax arising from belated filing of GSTR 3B, non obstante clause in section 75(12) permitting direct recovery under section 79 could not exclude such cases from amnesty scheme once liability was determined under section 73 GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A having been accepted and Form GST SPL 05 issued, authorities could not subsequently declare such approval void by invoking section 161 except in contingencies specifically contemplated under Rule 164(16) or 164(17) GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being governed by mandatory timelines under Rule 164, belated filing of application or payment beyond prescribed period could not be condoned on basis of substantial compliance, and rejection of waiver claim was justified GST: Waiver of interest or penalty under section 128A being subject to mandatory filing timelines under Rule 164, belated or non filing of application on plea of lack of knowledge of section 73 order could not be condoned, and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee was unaware of any tax demand leading to attachment of bank account without prior hearing, such recovery action was prima facie unsustainable as opportunity of hearing is a mandatory procedural requirement; so communication effecting attachment was to be kept in abeyance and attachment could not operate until hearing requirement was complied with
Karnataka High Court
DRC-13 garnishee notices could not be issued against a private limited company, distinct from deceased’s proprietary concern, for recovery of latter’s GST dues; as adjudication orders also failed to consider post-death liability, DRC-13 notices, orders and DRC-07 summaries were quashed, with proceedings restored for fresh decision. GST: GST adjudication orders were quashed where, despite sole proprietor’s death being intimated, authorities failed to examine applicability of Section 93(1)(a)/(b) before proceeding against alleged legal heirs; objection to multiple SCNs for same period was left open for consideration after detailed replies, with proceedings restored for fresh decision
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where show cause notice under section 74 did not disclose specific reasons and relied-upon documents were not supplied to petitioner, statutory requirement was not fulfilled and denial of opportunity vitiated proceedings, rendering consequent recovery and bank account attachment legally unsustainable and requiring fresh issuance of show cause notice with specific reasons
Karnataka High Court
Failure to upload an adjudication order in regular portal tab, coupled with non- service of full order and subsequent delayed knowledge, justified writ interference despite limitation; dismissal of statutory appeal was set aside, delay condoned and appeal restored for adjudication on merits, assessee having made statutory pre- deposit. GST: Coercive garnishee recovery during pendency of a statutory appeal, despite requisite pre-deposit, was unjustified; in view of appellate restoration, garnishee order was quashed, while dismissal of appeal as time-barred was set aside and delay condoned, with appeal restored for decision on merits
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where show cause notice was uploaded on GST portal under 'Additional Notices' instead of 'Notices and Orders', there was no valid service on petitioner and subsequent ex parte adjudication order and recovery notice based on such invalid service were not sustainable, leading to quashing of all such proceedings with liberty to issue fresh valid notice
Telangana High Court
Recovery of GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch as self-assessed tax under Explanation to Section 75(12) cannot be initiated directly under Section 79 without first issuing DRC-01B notice under Rule 88C or considering taxpayer's response; consequently, such garnishee proceedings were to be set aside
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order was not communicated to petitioner but only to its accountant who failed to relay information, leading to appeal delay until recovery action, dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified since sufficient cause existed and mandatory pre-deposit was paid, warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal for substantive appellate remedy. GST: Where petitioner learned of recovery only after bank accounts were frozen and payment of mandatory pre-deposit was made before filing appeal, interference was warranted to secure justice as recovery during pendency of appeal after pre-deposit violated statutory scheme, thus delay in filing appeal deserved condonation though garnishee freeze was ordered to continue till disposal of appeal
Karnataka High Court
Where registered person paid IGST on transaction initially considered inter- State which was later found to be intra-State requiring CGST/KGST, original authority erred in demanding additional tax, interest, and penalty without proper adjustment or refund, necessitating quashing of demand orders and restoration for fresh adjudication in compliance with statutory provisions and refund rules
Madras High Court
Where letters were issued to customers of respective petitioner directing diversion of amounts payable to petitioners towards alleged GST dues before any order-in-original determining liability was passed, such pre-assessment garnishee actions were invalid and unsustainable, with recovery only possible under section 79(1)(c) once liability was crystallized by order-in-original